ill 



mm 



\-wm 



m 



M "lAJiL liUMli- 




Class. 
Book. 



-X_iS-3_ 






CopyrightN°j2LJt-HA_7 



CORfRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



British- American 
L/iscords and Concords 

A record of three centuries 



Compiled by 

The History Circle 



G. P. Putnam's Sons 

New York and London 

^b€ fJnlcherbocher press 

1918 



iv Publishers' Foreword 

leading universities have contributed to 
the work the service of their own research 
and of their authoritative criticisms. The 
judgment of business men has been given 
in regard to the availability of the mate- 
rial for the interest and apprehension 
of the general public. Editors and other 
literary workers have contributed their 
aid to the final shaping of the material. 
The work of these contributors and col- 
laborators has been rendered gratuitously 
and anonymously, but the publishers are 
able to speak with personal knowledge of 
their authority and reputation. 

The publishers call attention to the 
letter from Thomas Jefferson to President 
Monroe, which is here reproduced in 
facsimile. The reproduction of the letter 
was placed at the disposal of the History 
Circle by the Congressional Library in 
Washington. 

The author of the Declaration of 



Publishers' Foreword v 

Independence, writing in 1823, expressed 
his hopeful confidence in the coming 
about of certain conditions, which condi- 
tions have now, a century later, been 
in part secured. 

The text of British-American Discords 
and Concords summarizes the relations 
between Britain and America during the 
three centuries which have elapsed since 
Englishmen first settled on the American 
continent. 

The main purpose of the narrative is 
to present facts, but space has been 
found to weave into the text a thread 
of philosophy and of human interest 
which prevents it from being a mere re- 
cord of events, and which gives evidence 
of the vital relations of certain of these 
events to phases of the present great war. 

Following the narrative, will be found a 
list presenting one hundred and thirty re- 
ferences from leading American historians 



vi Publishers' Foreword 

which bear out the statements and the 
conclusions of the text. The volume 
contains further a bibliography giving 
titles of some ninety works for broader 
reading on the subject. 

It is hoped that the public reception 
given to this first work of the History 
Circle will warrant the publication of 
further monographs, similar in general 
purpose and character. 

New York, Oct. i, 1918, 



CONTENTS 



PAGE 



Introduction . . . . i 

The First Epoch. 1607-1763 . 5 

The American Colonies ... 5 

The Second Epoch. 1763-18 15 9 

Causes of the American Revolution. 

1763-1776 9 

The American Revolution. 1 776-1 783 15 
Results in England of the American 

Revolution . . . . .16 

Early Weakness of the American 

Union. 1 783-1 793 ... 19 

Causes of the War of 1 81 2. 1 793-1812 22 

The War of 1812 .... 27 
The Peace of Ghent, 24th December, 

1814 28 

The Third Epoch . . 31 

Readjustments after the War of 1 8 1 2 . 31 

The Monroe Doctrine, 1823 . . 35 



viii Contents 

PAGE 

British Parliamentary Reforms. 1832 39 

The Caroline Incident. 1837 . . 41 

The Maine Boundary Dispute. 1842 42 

The Oregon Boundary. 1845 . . 43 

The Mexican War. 1 847-1848 . 45 

The Civil War. 1861-1865 . . 47 

The Trent Affair .... 48 

The Confederate Raiders . . 50 

Situation at the End of the Civil War 52 
Fenian Difficulties and Citizenship. 

1868 55 

The Venezuelan Boundary. 1895-1896 57 

Britain and the Spanish War. 1898 . 61 

Conclusions .... 63 

A Partial List of Citations . 71 

A Partial Bibliography . . 82 



Facsimile of Letter of Thomas 
Jefferson to James Monroe, 
October 24, 1823 ... 38 

Map ...... 70 



British- American 
Discords and Concords 



British-American 
Discords and Concords 



INTRODUCTION 

The political isolation of America is 
past. As a result of the attack of the 
greatest medieval autocracy of Europe, 
America has been drawn into the rapids 
of international politics. 

In guiding his nation through the cross- 
currents of that mighty stream, an auto- 
crat can command. The leader of a 
democracy, however, must rely on the 
enlightened approval of the people. Thus, 
upon the free people of a democracy rests 
the ultimate and unavoidable responsi- 



2 Britain and America 

bility for its policies. The conscientious 
discharge of this responsibiHty is the 
price they must pay for the privilege 
of continued self-government. To dis- 
charge this responsibility properly, free 
men must come to their decisions ad- 
visedly, intelligently, and without pre- 
judice. 

In the years immediately ahead, Ameri- 
cans will have to decide rightly and 
quickly the most momentous and fateful 
problems of their national life. The issues 
cannot be avoided or the responsibility 
shifted. The measure of liberty they can 
help extend to the world, even the degree 
of liberty they can retain for themselves, 
will largely depend on the intelligence, 
lack of prejudice, and the public spirit 
with which they, in the near future, view 
their international affairs. 

Appreciating the gravity of imminent 
problems, a number of Americans have 



Introduction 3 

collaborated in the compilation of this 
monograph on the past relations between 
America and Britain. Their hope is that 
the results of their collaboration may help 
to an unprejudiced knowledge of these 
past matters; for sound judgments on 
some of America's present and future 
national affairs can be reached only if 
approached with an open-minded under- 
standing of the past. 

A discussion of America's relations 
with Britain may be divided into three 
epochs : 

Between 1607 and 1763 occurred the 
establishment in America of the Anglo- 
Celtic race, and the growth of the British- 
American Colonies. 

In 1763 the immediate causes of their 
secession from Britain began to take 
form, and from then until 18 15 ensued 
the anti-British period. 

Since 181 5 there has been a century 



4 Britain and America 

of peace between America and Britain; 
but in the course of this century there 
has been more than once threat of war, 
and conflict has been avoided only by 
mutual understanding and forbearance. 



THE FIRST EPOCH 
I 607- I 763 

The American Colonies. 

The history of the United States may- 
be said to have begun with the patent of 
exploration granted by Henry VH to 
John Cabot on March 5, 1496. Cabot is 
the first definitely recorded discoverer 
of the North American continent along 
which he coasted, thus laying the founda- 
tion on which the British colonization of 
North America was built. 

Jamestown, founded in 1607, was the 
first British colony on the continent. 
Gradually other settlements were planted 
until the English-speaking people and 
their rivals, the French, held the whole 
Atlantic seaboard from Labrador to the 
Spanish settlements in Florida. 



6 Britain and America 

To generalize about all the British- 
American Colonies would be unsafe, 
for there were many settlements, begun 
under various differing tenets, by men of 
many creeds and aspirations. There is 
one statement, however, that will hold 
good for all. They all soon came under 
the control of sturdy Anglo-Celtic free- 
men who had inherited the spirit of 
Magna Charta together with that of 
Cromwell's rebellion of 1642, which for- 
ever overthrew for Englishmen the out- 
worn theory of the "divine right of 
kings." With such an inheritance they 
easily passed on to the doctrine that 
"Governments derive their just powers 
from the consent of the governed." 

In each of the American Colonies an 
elective assembly was formed, but to 
most of the Colonies the British King 
appointed a governor. The assemblies 
raised the moneys wherewith to meet the 



The First Epoch 7 

colonial expenses, including the salaries of 
the governors, and discussed with them 
the administration of the laws. Thus in 
America were reproduced contemporary 
British conditions, namely, that the elec- 
ted representatives of the people made 
the laws and voted the taxes, while the 
King or his agents administered the laws. 

In England, Parliamentary growth had 
been a series of bargains between the 
King wanting money for private and 
public expenses and the representatives 
of the people wanting an ever-increasing 
voice in government. The colonial as- 
semblies and the governors followed a 
similar course ; but in America represen- 
tative self-government grew more broadly 
and more rapidly than in England. 

Suffrage is now so inclusive that it is 
necessary to recall that, in 1775, of the 
8,000,000 people in England only about 
150,000, or 2%, had the power to elect 



8 Britain and America 

representatives to Parliament, whereas of 
the 3,000,000 American Colonials pro- 
bably over 5% had the right to vote, 
although this varied greatly m different 
Colonies. 

These democratic conditions in America 
and the public temper which had pro- 
duced them were incomprehensible to 
the reactionary Hanoverian George III 
when he came to the throne, in 1760, 
with the avowed purpose of establish- 
ing the British Crown as an autocracy. 
He, therefore, deliberately set out to 
make himself King, not as a leader who 
obeys his people but as one who com- 
mands his subjects. His attempt to turn 
back the progress of self-government 
among the English-speaking people re- 
sulted in the War of 1776 and the seces- 
sion of the American Colonies. 



THE SECOND EPOCH 

1763-1815 

Causes of the American Revolution. 1763- 
1776 

In colonial days the world at large 
looked upon Colonies as outposts, the 
primary purpose of which should be to 
contribute to the prosperity of the home 
country. But many Americans and not 
a few Englishmen held a different view. 
In 1754 Benjamin Franklin wrote: 

"... What imports it to the general 
state whether a merchant, a smith, or a 
hatter grows rich in Old or New Eng- 
land? . . . And, if there be any differ- 
ence, those who have most contributed to 
enlarge Britain's empire and commerce, 
increase her strength, her wealth, and 



lo Britain and America 

the numbers of her people, at the risk 
of their own lives and private fortunes 
in new and strange countries, methinks 
aught rather to expect some preference." 

Each of the American Colonies, having 
achieved an unprecedented measure of 
local self-government, had come to think 
much of its own attainments, its own 
commerce, and its own laws. This is 
characteristic of virile young communi- 
ties. In the thirteen American Colonies 
it resulted in each Colony paying scant 
heed to its neighbours and all paying even 
less heed to imposts and mercantile 
regulations emanating from England. So 
self-centered was each Colony that they 
would not join together even for mutual 
defence. Benjamin Franklin, while agent 
for the Colonies in England, publicly 
stated this. 

When England imposed imperial cus- 
toms duties, American merchants took 



The Second Epoch ii 

refuge in smuggling ; but when the French 
and Indians attacked the western out- 
posts of any Colony, England was told 
that it was her duty to defend her colonial 
realm. England was, therefore, obliged 
to incur heavy expenses in the French 
and Indian colonial wars. The Colonials 
often refused to bear their share of these 
expenses or to furnish their quota of sol- 
diers; and this, even though the new con- 
quests west of the Alleghany Mountains 
were valuable primarily to the Colonies. 

It was not unnatural that the Colonials 
came to be looked upon as unruly irrespon- 
sibles who should either defend them- 
selves or meet part of the expense England 
incurred in defendmg them. The auto- 
crat George III, intolerant of democracy 
even at home, was ill-fitted to handle 
the situation. His ministers were no 
wiser, and at that time the King con- 
trolled Parliament. 



12 Britain and America 

In 1763, English troops, with material 
assistance from the American Colonials, 
had finally conquered the French in 
Canada, and all the north country passed 
to the English-speaking peoples. For a 
little while it seemed as though joint 
success in arms had drawn the Colonies 
and England closer together. 

But, beginning in 1763, the English 
Government tried to raise colonial reve- 
nue to offset at least a part of the colonial 
expenses England had had to incur, by 
enforcing trade laws which for a hundred 
years had for the most part been left 
unenforced. This effort interfered with 
the practice of smuggling, which had 
become general, and raised much feel- 
ing against the King and his agents. 
After reviving the trade laws, England 
enacted a new impost law known as 
the Stamp Act. This also was intended 
to raise colonial revenue to help offset 



The Second Epoch 13 

England's colonial expenditures; but its 
enactment caused great public indig- 
nation. 

The heat of the resulting controversy 
between the Colonials and the Crown 
brought into prominence radicals who 
advanced separatist tendencies. Their 
protests incensed the wilful George III 
who persisted with his blundering retorts 
to the insubordinate utterances and acts 
of the American Colonials. 

In 1775, about one third of the Ameri- 
can Colonials, led by radicals, merchants 
interested in freedom of trade, and 
independent aristocrats such as Wash- 
ington and Jefferson, formed the group 
which ultimately became the revolu- 
tionists. The large landholders of the 
middle colonies, merchants injured by 
smuggling, and conservatives led another 
third of the population opposed to seces- 
sion. The remaining third, most of 



14 Britain and America 

whom were middle-class farmers, were 
quite indifferent to the political issues. 

It became, therefore, the task of the 
revolutionists so to present their cause 
as to give a promise of success to a move- 
ment actively supported by only a third 
of the population. The continuation of 
the autocratic acts of the unpopular 
King and his adherents, and the over- 
bearing manner of his civil and military 
agents furnished the theme. Thomas Jef- 
ferson, with his masterly command of 
language, framed the platform and drew 
up the Declaration of Independence. In 
it he combined an idealization of the 
most radical political tenets then current 
in both England and America, with a 
vigorous arraignment of the failures of 
George III to understand colonial con- 
ditions, as evidenced by his attempts 
to coerce the self-governing American 
Colonials. 



The Second Epoch 15 

The American Revolution. lyyO-iyS^ 

A revolt started by a minority of the 
Colonials was predestined at best to a 
protracted and precarious course, with a 
strong probability of failure. With con- 
tinued disaffection and desertions among 
his troops, constant intrigue among poli- 
ticians behind his back, and entirely in- 
adequate finances, the genius of George 
Washington was fully tested. That he 
did not meet prompt and complete defeat 
seems remarkable; that he carried the 
Revolution through to a successful end 
seems marvellous. 

The American Revolution was in fact a 
civil war fought by men of the same race, 
with democracy on one side and auto- 
cracy on the other. The radical and 
revolutionary American Colonials fought 
the forces of autocracy with shot and 
shell. They were effectively aided by the 
liberal British across the sea. In Eng- 



i6 Britain and America 

land, some army officers resigned their 
commissions rather than fight the Colo- 
nials. The unpopularity of the war 
obliged the King to supplement his forces 
by hiring Hessian mercenaries. British 
statesmen entered the struggle and this 
civil war was fought in the British Parlia- 
ment as earnestly as on the battlefields 
of America. Indeed it was won in Parlia- 
ment rather than on the field, because the 
aggressive action of the British Ministry, 
directing the army and the navy, was 
from the outset hampered and finally 
defeated by the members of Parliament. 
The blunders of the King and his minis- 
ters had so incensed the more democratic 
people that Parliament became liberal 
and forced its will on the King. 

Results in England of the American 
Revolution. 
In the reign of George III, England was 
still far from being a democracy; its 



The Second Epoch 17 

8,000,000 people did not have the power 
to elect representatives to the House of 
Commons and the franchise was pos- 
sessed by only some 150,000 members 
of the landed gentry and other land- 
holders or men of property. It is, there- 
fore, all the more remarkable that a 
majority of the representatives of this 
small electorate, with its strongly aristo- 
cratic connections, should ultimately have 
sided with the American revolutionists 
against the autocratic King. And while 
the attainment of American independence 
may seem to have been the greatest result 
of the American Revolution, it had an- 
other result of great significance. Its re- 
action on the British Government resulted 
in the final supremacy of the British 
Parliament over the Crown, thus ending 
in the reign of George III the six hundred 
years' struggle since Magna Charta. 
The momentous change of making the 



1 8 Britain and America 

Ministry responsible to Parliament instead 
of to the King was greatly hastened in 
England as a result of the American 
Revolution. The fall of the last Brit- 
ish Ministry responsible solely to the 
King placed the entire government of 
Britain under the control of Parliament. 
From then on, this semi-hereditary, semi- 
elective, but strongly aristocratic body 
made the laws and levied the taxes. -It 
designated the ministers who should 
execute the laws, disburse the public 
funds, and conduct the government ac- 
cording to the will of Parliament, instead 
of according to the will of the King. 

The change in the control of the 
Ministry deeply affected Britain's future 
colonial policy. We have seen that the 
autocratic acts of the King and his 
Ministry caused the secession and loss 
of the American Colonies. Later, Parlia- 
ment, though still aristocratic, broad- 



The Second Epoch 19 

ened the franchise so that the House of 
Commons became more representative 
of the people, rather than especially re- 
presentative of the landed aristocracy. 
This resulted, ultimately, in a democra- 
tic Parliament and in the present Com- 
monwealth of Britannic Nations — an 
alliance of the six self-governing and 
non-tributary nations comprised in New 
foundland, Canada, Australia, New 
Zealand, South Africa, and the British 
Isles. 

Thus we see that the lesson learned 
by Britain from the American Revolu- 
tion gave just grounds for George Wash- 
ington being subsequently acclaimed in 
the British Parliament as "The Founder 
of the British Empire." 

Early Weakness of the Americaji Union. 
1783-1793 

The American Revolution was a revolt 

against the attempt of the British King 



20 Britain and America 

to curtail local self-government. Its suc- 
cess naturally stimulated the local and 
separate self-government of the Colonies, 
each of which became in theory a sover- 
eign power. 

In the well-federalized United States of 
today it is difficult to realize that at the 
outset many States carried this theory so 
far as to maintain customs barriers against 
others. It was the common opinion that 
the Central Government was charged 
only with the negotiation of foreign 
affairs; but in fact, even in these matters 
the Central Government had no means of 
enforcing the co-operation or compliance 
of the several States. 

At the very outset of their career as a 
recognized nation, the States individually 
did not adhere to the terms of the treaty 
of peace with Great Britain, because 
there was no power to compel them to 
any other course than that which each 



The Second Epoch 21 

State individually chose. Many of them 
harassed the Loyalists still within their 
borders and, in breach of the terms of 
the treaty, confiscated their property. 

On the other hand, the Americans 
were indignant at the conduct of Britain. 
They were justly indignant that the 
north-western forts were not surrendered 
to them as the treaty stipulated ; and they 
were unjustly indignant because they 
were not still given special commercial 
consideration as if they were still under 
the British flag. 

These irritating conditions, for which 
both peoples were about equally to blamie, 
kept alive in the different States a 
sharp resentment against Britain. Inci- 
dentally this very seriously complicated 
the problems of Washington, Madison, 
Hamilton, and Franklin who laboured 
long before they succeeded in establishing 
a real union of States. The fact that 



22 Britain and America 

several of the northern States made an 
effort to associate with their ratification 
of the Federal Constitution a stipulation 
that they had the right to withdraw from 
the Union whenever they might see fit, is 
a noteworthy index of the weakness in 
their early bonds of union. 

But the following sentences, written by 
Franklin to the British Peace Commis- 
sioner, David Hartley, on the i6th of Oc- 
tober, 1783, show that animosity against 
Britain was not universal among the 
leaders of the American Revolution : 

"What would you think of a proposi- 
tion, if I should make it, of a compact 
between England, France, and America? 
America would be as happy as the Sabine 
Girls, if she could be the means of uniting 
in perpetual peace her father and her 
husband." 

Causes of the War of 1812. iyg^-1812 
In 1793, Great Britain entered upon a 



The Second Epoch 23 

war against France which lasted almost 
continuously for twenty-two years and 
developed into a death struggle with 
Napoleon. 

America was neutral, but out of the con- 
flict developed the two major causes of the 
War of 1 8 1 2 : the impressment of American 
seamen by Britain and the Decrees of Na- 
poleon and the Orders in Council of Britain. 

During the Napoleonic Wars, commerce 
was brisk in America and seamen's 
wages were higher than in England. 
This resulted in wholesale desertions from 
British merchantmen and men-of-war 
whenever they touched American ports. 
The deserting sailors were furnished with 
"first papers" of American citizenship 
at the very docks, and such papers were 
passed from hand to hand for a few 
dollars. It thus came about that practi- 
cally every American ship sailing the 
high seas had among her crew British 



24 Britain and America 

sailors who had only recently acquired 
such papers. 

With knowledge of this, the British 
navy made a practice of searching Ameri- 
can merchantmen at sea and removing 
from them such "Britishers." The Brit- 
ish warrant for this was the claim, held 
by her until 1868, that no subject of a 
monarchy could, of his initiative, cast off 
his allegiance. On the other hand Amer- 
ica, being especially desirous of increasing 
her population, claimed that allegiance 
was transferable entirely at the will or 
pleasure of the individual. 

While the desertions and impressment 
of deserters, together with a number of 
bona fide American citizens, caused much 
feeling in England and America, the 
restrictions of American trade by the 
British Orders in Council incident to 
the Napoleonic wars injured American 
interests much more deeply. 



The Second Epoch 25 

In November, 1806, Napoleon decreed 
the ports of Great Britain closed to all 
foreign shipping. This injured American 
trade and caused resentment. Brit- 
ain retaliated two months later by 
ordering all ports of France closed 
except Bordeaux which was left open 
only to American ships. This special 
concession by Britain to America was 
withdrawn ten months latet and all 
continental ports from the Adriatic to 
the Baltic were closed to American ship- 
ping. American resentment focussed on 
Britain. 

The liberal Whigs in England protested 
against this anti- American policy. The 
effect of their protest was weakened by 
the allegation of Senator Timothy Picker- 
ing of Massachusetts who asserted, with- 
out warrant, that Jefferson, his political 
enemy, planned to aid Napoleon in crush- 
ing Great Britain. The English Whigs, 



26 Britain and America 

however, persevered in their opposition to 
the Orders in Council which they feared 
would lead to war with America. They 
at last brought the Tory Government 
to their view. On the i6th of June, 
1812, it agreed to withdraw its Or- 
ders and this was done on the 23d of 
June — just too late. Congress had de- 
clared war against Britain on the i8th 
of June. 

Thus, the War of 1812 was directly 
the outcome of Britain's struggle against 
Napoleon, who in point of fact per- 
sisted in the maintenance of his own 
Decrees against America's commerce. 
The liberal Whigs in England for years 
had tried to avoid this war with America. 
Had there been a transatlantic cable to 
bring to America the agreement of the 
1 6th of June, it is highly probable that 
the thirty months of war would have 
been avoided. 



The Second Epoch 27 

The War of 181 2. 

To the United States, the War of 181 2 
was of great importance. Except for 
the several unsuccessful attempts to in- 
vade Canada, the land fighting was 
within the States and most of the naval 
engagements were in American waters. 
To England, however, this war was a 
small by-product of her all-absorbing life 
and death struggle with Napoleon. She 
had tried to avoid war by repealing its 
principal cause, her Orders in Council, 
and when it was forced upon her, she 
considered it a minor issue. 

In the earlier part of the war the British 
were generally victorious on land, while 
the superior fighting qualities of the 
infant American navy gave England 
much concern. But later the American 
forces won some signal victories on land, 
while the effects of their initial naval 
victories were practically nullified by 



28 Britain and America 

the British blockade of American ports. 
American privateers, however, remained a 
serious menace to British commerce up to 
the end of the war. 

Just as this war was generally un- 
popular in England, it was likewise un- 
popular in certain sections of the United 
States, as is clearly shown by the Hart- 
ford Convention held in 1814. Dele- 
gates from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
and Connecticut met in this Convention, 
under the leadership of Senator Timothy 
Pickering, and it was commonly reported 
that as a protest against the war they 
looked toward the secession of New Eng- 
land from the United States. 

The Peace of Ghent. 24th December, 181 4 
The peace which terminated the War 
of 1 81 2 is, perhaps, one of the most 
remarkable in history. England, with 
her attention centred on Napoleon, had 



The Second Epoch 29 

waged with America what had practically 
amounted to a drawn conflict. 

Both America and England claimed 
victory and each demanded concessions 
from the other. England stipulated that 
part of Maine and the southern shores 
of the Great Lakes should be ceded to 
her as a protection against any renewal of 
naval aggression against Canada. Amer- 
ica demanded the abolition of British 
naval visitation and impressment of sailors 
on American merchant ships. 

Each nation flatly refused even to con- 
sider the demands of the other. In the 
meantime, however, Napoleon had been 
taken prisoner, the European war had 
ceased and England, weary of fighting, 
was ready to negotiate with the United 
States. A treaty was signed which 
merely put an end to the fighting and 
left all else to be adjusted by peaceful 
means. 



30 Britain and America 

In this treaty, no reference was made 
to the claim of Britain to the right of 
search of American vessels on the high 
seas, a claim which had been an important 
factor in bringing about the war. 

The Commissioners agreed, as between 
gentlemen, that the practice should be 
discontinued. 



THE THIRD EPOCH 

Readjustme?its after the War of 1812. 

Parliament by 1815 had come into 
complete control of the Cabinet, but the 
franchise in England was so restricted 
that the control of Parliament remained 
in the hands of the Peers and other 
landed proprietors. Under their influ- 
ence, a conservative Tory Government 
had long continued in power. 

While the English Whigs tolerated 
America as a country of possible promise 
when it should have grown up, the Tories 
looked upon Americans as uncouth and 
irresponsible radicals who were beyond 
the pale of respectable society. 

With the Tories in power and in view 

of what Lord Bryce has described as 

"the offensively supercilious attitude of 
31 



32 Britain and America 

the English and the self-assertive arro- 
gance of the Americans," there seemed 
little hope of a peaceful adjustment of 
the many points of difference left after 
the war. 

Both sides had continued their feverish 
shipbuilding to control the Great Lakes; 
but in 1816 the American Minister to 
London, John Quincy Adams, suggested 
to Lord Castlereagh, the British Foreign 
Secretary, that limits be mutually set to 
the naval forces on the Great Lakes. 
At first the British refused to consider 
such a plan, but in the spring of 
1 81 7, Bagot, the British Minister to 
Washington, and Rush, the American 
Acting Secretary of State, signed the 
Rush-Bagot agreement reducing arma- 
ments on the Great Lakes to the mini- 
mum required for police purposes against 
smugglers. 

This notable step was followed by the 



The Third Epoch 33 

treaty of 1818, wherein the fisheries dis- 
putes were settled, in the main, favour- 
ably to the claims of the United States. 
It was further provided that the great 
and practically unknown Oregon Terri- 
tory should be held jointly for ten years. 

By the year 1846, the long, invisible, 
and unguarded boundary line between 
Canada and the United States was finally 
fixed. As England had ceased to impress 
American seamen of British birth, and 
as the fall of Napoleon had rendered the 
various Orders in Council obsolete, the 
causes of the War of 1812 were thus 
peacefully adjusted to the satisfaction 
of the United States. 

This peaceful adjustment was all the 
more remarkable because, while it was 
being made with an antagonistic Tory 
Government, there occurred in Florida 
an incident which of itself might have 
brought on war. 



34 Britain and America 

The Seminole Indians of Spanish- 
Florida attacked American troops on the 
border. General Andrew Jackson pur- 
sued them into Florida and seized the 
Spanish town of Saint Marks. Inci- 
dentally he captured two British sub- 
jects, Arbuthnot and Ambrister, whom 
he court-martialed and executed for 
having aided the Indians against the 
Americans. 

Jackson's high-handed proceedings 
against these men so incensed the English 
people that the government was almost 
forced to declare war. But by the 
patience of the Tory Minister, Lord 
Castlereagh, a declaration of war was 
prevented until further evidence was 
submitted. This additional evidence led 
England to consider that Arbuthnot and 
Ambrister had forfeited their country's 
protection because of their hostile be- 
havior toward friendly America. 



The Third Epoch 35 

The Monroe Doctrine. 182J 

That the Monroe Doctrine had for its 
purpose to restrain the expansion of 
European nations in North and South 
America is well known; but that it had 
its origin in suggestions from George 
Canning, the British Secretary for For- 
eign Affairs, is not so generally known. 

After the fall of Napoleon, the auto- 
cracies of Continental Europe restored the 
royal Bourbon family to the throne of 
France and, at the suggestion of the Czar 
of Russia, formed what they were pleased 
to call the ''Holy Alliance" and the 
"Quadruple Alliance." These were alli- 
ances led by the monarchs of Russia, 
Austria, and Prussia to resist the demo- 
cratic tendencies of the times and to keep 
the world safe for autocrats. 

A rebellion against the Spanish King 
broke out, and the French King, having 
joined the "Holy Alliance," came to his 



36 Britain and America 

aid, supported in turn by the rulers of Prus- 
sia, Austria, and Russia. After a campaign 
of some magnitude in Spain, the French 
overthrew the constitution and restored 
the King of Spain to absolute power. 

In the meantime, however, the con- 
tinental colonies of Spain in America had 
asserted and were maintaining their in- 
dependence. The Spanish King accord- 
ingly requested the further assistance of 
the "Holy Alliance" to help him to re- 
subjugate his lost colonies. The mem- 
bers of the Alliance, with the exception 
of France, agreed to a reconquest of the 
Latin Americans, as they phrased it, ''in 
accordance, with the Gospel of Jesus 
Christ." 

But relatively liberal England saw a 
menace to her interests in the proposed 
autocratic conquest. She, therefore, 
sought an alliance with the ultra-demo- 
cratic United States to block the plans 



The Third Epoch 37 

of the ultra-autocratic "Holy Alliance." 
This suggestion from George Canning to 
Rush, the American Minister in London, 
awakened the keenest interest in Wash- 
ington, and President Monroe privately 
sought the advice of the revolutionary 
patriots, James Madison and Thomas 
Jefferson. 

Madison replied that such co-opera- 
tion with Britain against the "Holy 
Alliance" "must insure success in the 
event of an appeal to arms" and that "it 
doubles the chance of success without 
that appeal." 

The aged Jefferson wrote President 
Monroe that Britain's offer of alliance 
should be accepted. "By acceding to 
her proposition, we detach her from 
the band of despots, bring her mighty 
weight into the scale of free government, 
and emancipate at one stroke a whole 
continent, which might otherwise linger 



Lb itet/r rn/YO fW- ircea/n JTlun^ (rp^ri\J~n\C ar\ e-u/r- Injiut. Oi/t\d^ t^^ju-t^r c-tncjUi-UM -t/rM/a.t^ 

jKfu^d. ^e-, neo^^-S eovfewvc-U, ewri<Ao-eJ (y>-^ />*- frfrUi J) Sm»m^j irwr 2- I'^iunyrTjC )ijt«^ 
Lun-erpal<« i/rCL&ryt\suLdJl*—0'r\- Cot- Atto/tCu^c aJ^MrJ. {iyrr^TxjtA,/Yerth-t/ScuJrt, fui^ a. jeA 

•f<n^ i^MJUt-O^ Jwi^Anm /I hJUrmtjn^S'^afriti. OAxJL SuhLTt p-<rr>\ H^ ilj lu/Trrp«^ . fc/fcc^/ftx. 



Monticello Oct. 24, 23. 
Dear Sir: 

The question presented by the letters you have sent me is the most moment- 
ous which has ever been offered to my contemplation since that of independence 
that made us a nation; this sets our compass, and points the course which we 
are to steer thro' the ocean of time opening on our views. And never could we 
embark on it under circumstances more auspicious. Our first and funda- 
mental maxim should be never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe; 
our 2nd never to suffer Europe to intermeddle in Cis-Atlantic affairs. Amer- 
ica, North and South, has a set of interests distinct from those of Europe, and 
peculiarly her own. She should, therefore, have a system of her own, separate 
and apart from that of Europe. While the last is laboring to become the 
domicile of despotism, our endeavor should surely be to make our hemisphere 
that of freedom. One nation, most of all, could disturb us in this pursuit; 
she now offers to lead, aid, and accompany us in it. By acceding to her pro- 
position, we detach her from the band of despots, bring her mighty weight 
into the scale of free government, and emancipate at one stroke a whole conti- 
nent, which might otherwise linger long in doubt and difficulty. Great 
Britain is the nation which can do us the most harm of any one, or all on 
earth; and with her on our side we need not fear the whole world. With her 
then we should the most sedulously nourish a cordial friendship; and nothing 
would tend more to knit our affections than to be fighting once more side by 
side in the same cause. Not that I would purchase even her amity at the 
price of taking part in her wars. But the war in which the present proposition 
might engage us, should that be it's consequence, is not her war, but ours. It's 
object is to introduce and to establish the American system, of ousting from 
our land all foreign nations, of never permitting the powers of Europe to inter- 
meddle with the affairs cf our nations. It is to maintain our own principle, 
not to depart from it. And if to facilitate this, we can effect a division in the 
body of the European powers, and draw over to our side it's most powerful 
member, surely we should do it. But I am clearly of Mr. Canning's opinion 



Jf fiy-«xrrA<^u^ tA". urMy. CxuJt n-rJl^uirrx unAi^-d/)raA>vr\. Jyvrrt fitai/r Au^altu a/^y^ 
(t^UAy If^ /i<n\a^a/vZL ♦rv/ rxjnu cjirvt^^yr^*-^ Oy 14\jl ^t^jolUf i^AAtl^H cUlccut\.'i^, cxf- 

^-rc^^^^^yr^^ ,r,^ p,rCi(?:^ u,^- U^. ^Ji.oa ^-i^ JeAv«i^ '''^^^^ «*« ^-^^^ 

iovTK (/T\ m«_ dajXantxA^ar^ n ■x'prrt-ejoL 'fru>>'~io«-«wym rv/>f a/t ^ke. cuuouijnA^Um Jl ei/wy J} frittJ 

un}iK.aSlL(ru/r--rejLa/^ru) \'Vtjt<3rr^iMA- l^rllerrpirKMycnx J) a/T\^ OuCOK^ ■ 

iLbo^t-rayr^Uyr^ Oyr^ fo<ruj<yr^ U) tuTr\j^>MLiX . ce^-tCjm , trr ajU>ujy¥fAC<rr> i/n amy </M*/.-tv«iy. 



that it will prevent war, instead of provoking it. With Great Britain with- 
drawn from their scale and shifted into that of our two continents, all Europe 
combined would not dare to risk war. Nor is the occasion to be slighted, 
which this proposition offers, of declaring our Protest against the atrocious 
violations of the rights of nations by the interference of any one in the internal 
affairs of another, so flagitiously begun by Bonaparte and now continued by the 
equally lawless alliance, calling itself Holy. 

But we have first to ask ourselves a question. Do we wish to acquire to 
our own confederacy any one or more of the Spanish provinces? I candidly 
confess that I have ever looked on Cuba as the most interesting addition which 
could ever be made to our system of states. The control which, with Florida 
point this island would give us over the Gulph of Mexico, and the countries 
and the Isthmus bordering on it, as well as all those whose waters flow into it, 
would fill up the measure of our political well-being. Yet, as I am sensible 
that this can never be obtained, even with her own consent, but by war, and 
as her independence, which is our second interest, and especially her indepen- 
dence of England, can be secured without it, I have no hesitation at abandon- 
ing my first wish to future chances, and accepting it's independence with peace 
and the friendship of England, rather than it's association at the expense of a 
war and her enmity. I could honestly therefore join in the declaration pro- 
posed that we aim not at the acquisition of any of those possessions, that we 
will not stand in the way of any amicable arrangement between any of them 
and the mother country: but that we will oppose, with all our means, the 
forcible interposition of any other power, either as auxiliary, stipendiary, or 
under any other form or pretext, and niost especially their transfer to any 
power, by conquest, cession, or acquisition in any other way. 

I should think it therefore advisable that the Executive should encourage 
the British government to a continuance in the dispositions expressed in these 
letters, by an assurance of his concurrence with them, as far as his authority 



goes, and that as it may lead to war, the Declaration of which is vested in 
congress, the case shall be laid before them for consideration at their first 
meeting under the reasonable aspect in which it is seen by himself. 

I have been so long weaned from political subjects, and have so long ceased 
to take any interest in them that I am sensible that I am not qualified to offer 
'opinions worthy of any attention. But the question now proposed involves 
consequences so lasting, and effects so decisive of our future destinies, as to 
kindle all the interest I have heretofore felt on these occasions, and to induce 
me to the hazard of opinions, which will prove my wish only to contribute still 
my mite in what may be useful to our country, and praying you to accept 
them at only what they are worth, I add the assurance of my constant and 
affectionate friendship and respect. 

(Signed) Th. Jefferson. 



The Third Epoch 39 

The amazement of the "Holy AlHance" 
may well be imagined. Its monarchs 
had supposed that British arrogance 
toward the lost American Colonies and 
American bumptiousness toward a cast- 
off rule had kept keen the hatreds en- 
gendered by two wars. And yet for the 
maintenance of the new democracies of 
southern America all the English-speak- 
ing peoples, acting on British suggestion, 
had joined hands in promulgating and en- 
dorsing the American Monroe Doctrine. 

The "Holy Alliance " gave up its aggres- 
sive plans to resubjugate Spain's lost colo- 
nies. The Western Hemisphere had been 
made safe for democracy by the joint ac- 
tion of all the English-speaking peoples. 

British Parliamentary Reforms. i8j2 

Prior to 1830, the steam-engine and the 
locomotive had been invented in England. 
The steam-engine changed manufacture 



40 Britain and America 

from the manual work of the artisan at 
home or in his shop to the wholesale 
production of the factory. In turn, 
railroads made it possible cheaply to 
supply industrial centres with raw ma- 
terials for the factories and food for 
the factory hands. Thus in the first 
third of the nineteenth century great 
industrial communities were built up 
under entirely novel conditions of living. 
After having been in the minority for 
twenty-five years, the liberal Whigs, in 
1830, gained control of Parliament and 
immediately set out to reform that body. 
In two years they succeeded in extend- 
ing the franchise among the growing in- 
dustrial classes so that the House of 
Commons became more representative of 
the people. Eventually, as the popular 
power of the elective House of Commons 
grew, this branch of Parliament came so 
to overshadow the hereditary House of 



The Third Epoch 41 

Lords that the latter' s powers finally 
became in practice merely advisory. 

By these and later Parliamentary re- 
forms introduced by the liberal leaders, 
the people came to control the House of 
Commons, which itself controlled the 
Ministry or Administration of the govern- 
ment. In turn, the Ministry lead the 
House of Commons in controlling the 
House of Lords through its power to cause 
the appointment of new lords. These 
progressive changes produced in Great 
Britain a government as democratic as 
that which the United States had estab- 
lished more than fifty years earlier when 
the Constitution was enacted. 

The ' ' Caroline ' ' Incident. 18^7 

While the Parliamentary reforms were 
being evolved, America and Britain 
passed through some acute controversies, 
any one of which might have precipitated 



42 Britain and America 

war between peoples less fundamentally 
in accord with each other. 

In 1837, during the Canadian insurrec- 
tions, some people operating from the 
American shore used a small vessel called 
the Caroline to help Canadian agitators 
on the Niagara River. Canadian soldiers 
invaded the American shore, burned the 
Caroline, and in the fracas, killed an 
American. While these individuals had 
no right to aid the Canadian agita- 
tors, the soldiers, in their reprisal, had 
in turn illegally invaded the territory 
of the United States. These events 
aroused indignation in both Britain and 
America; but when the facts became 
generally known both coimtries dismissed 
the case. 

The Maine Boundary Dispute. 1842 

As the Maine boundary had been left 
unsettled ever since the Treaty of 1783, 



The Third Epoch 43 

Britain sent Lord Ashburton to Wash- 
ington to settle it. His personal com- 
mission to do this was a noteworthy 
compliment to America, as he was the 
Whig who in 1808 had most firmly con- 
tended for American shipping rights. 

The settlement was accomplished in 
four months by the Webster-Ashburton 
treaty, in the conduct of which Webster 
showed great shrewdness in overcoming 
the determined opposition of the Governor 
of Maine, while Lord Ashburton displayed 
so conciliatory a spirit that he afterwards 
was roundly denounced in Canada as 
having yielded too much to the United 
States. 

The Oregon Boundary. 1845 

Hardly had the Maine boundary been 
settled, when the most ominous cry yet 
raised threatened to bring war between 
the two countries. The United States, 



44 Britain and America 

after having offered to compromise on 
the forty-ninth parallel, began to claim 
the Oregon territory as far north as the 
parallel of 54° 40'. "Fifty-four forty or 
fight " became a popular rallying cry of the 
party that elected President Polk in 1844. 

It may be that this slogan was used 
merely as a political platform on which to 
get elected, but not to be observed when 
it had served its purpose; or, perhaps, 
Polk, as President, saw the case in a 
truer light. At any rate, he suggested to 
the British that the forty-ninth parallel 
would make a satisfactory basis for a 
final settlement, as indeed his predecessor, 
Tyler, had suggested. 

The British contended for more terri- 
tory; and Pakenham, in an unnecessarily 
brusque reply, rejected Polk's proposal. 
Thereupon, Polk indicated very clearly 
that the United States would not dis- 
cuss the matter further. Negotiations 



The Third Epoch 45 

were dropped and Congress was called on 
to make preparations for sustaining Amer- 
ican claims in the Oregon region. Paken- 
ham's refusal was not upheld by the 
British Government; and, in 1846, the 
boundary proposed by Polk was accepted. 
The habit of adjusting their differences 
by peaceful compromises was being de- 
veloped between Britain and the United 
States. 

The Mexican War. 1847-1848 

In the meantime the United States 
was steadily pushing to the westward 
by successive waves of migration. As 
part of this expansion, the RepubHc of 
Texas, broken off from Mexico, had been 
permitted to enter the Union. The 
Mexican War was concluded in 1848, and 
California, with the adjacent territories, 
was taken from Mexico. 

In this series of events the British 



46 Britain and America 

Government scarcely observed the same 
spirit of fairness and co-operation that 
had marked its conduct in regard to 
the disputes over the Canadian bound- 
aries. 

Both President Polk and Lord Palmer- 
ston, the British Premier, were aggres- 
sive expansionists. Palmerston considered 
the expansion of the United States a 
possible future menace to British trade 
supremacy. The tenor of the times was 
competitive rather than co-operative. 
Britain, therefore, frowned on accre- 
tions to the United States and was busy 
with intrigue in Mexico and Europe, to 
prevent, first, the annexation of Texas 
and later, the acquisition of California. 
She even went so far as to urge France 
to co-operate in preventing the expan- 
sion of the United States by a Franco- 
British guarantee of the integrity of 
Mexico. 



The Third Epoch 47 

The Civil War. 1861 

The aristocratic and conservative classes 
in Europe thought they foresaw the 
breaking up of democracy when the 
United States was sundered by civil war. 
In England, the adherents of the old 
world regime leaned to the Confederacy, 
while the admirers of democracy favoured 
the Union. The middle course attempted 
by the British Government throughout 
the war reflected this division of opinion 
in England. 

Within four weeks after the begin- 
ning of hostilities, Britain declared her 
neutrality "between the Government of 
the United States and certain States 
styling themselves the Confederate States 
of America." The people of the Union 
States interpreted this prompt recogni- 
tion of belligerency as an espousal of the 
Confederate cause and were greatly in- 
censed. They themselves, however, by 



48 Britain and America 

declaring a blockade against the Con- 
federacy and by a subsequent decision of 
the Supreme Court, recognized the status 
of the Confederacy as that of a belliger- 
ent; and they thus confirmed the propri- 
ety of the position taken by the British 
Government. The Confederate States, 
on the other hand, were indignant that 
Britain withheld from the Confederate 
Government full recognition as a sover- 
eign power. 

The ''Trent'' Affair. 

Having been recognized as a belliger- 
ent by both Britain and France, the 
Confederacy appointed commissioners to 
these countries — James M. Mason to 
Great Britain and John Slidell to France. 
After running the Federal blockade to 
Cuba, these commissioners sailed for 
England on the British mail steamer 
Trent; but the United States warship 



The Third Epoch 49 

San Jacinto, under Captain Wilkes, 
stopped the Trent on the high seas 
and took off the two Confederate com- 
missioners. 

There was such enthusiasm in the 
Union over this act that Congress gave 
Captain Wilkes a vote of thanks and a 
silver service. But Britain pointed out 
the similarity between his act and her 
own visitations and seizures which had 
contributed to bringing on the war 
of 18 12. She emphasized the fact that 
she had discontinued seizures thereafter, 
and that in 1858 she had formally agreed 
they were not to be repeated. President 
Lincoln admitted the propriety of this 
claim and the Confederate commissioners 
were released. By his ability to judge 
the facts and stand out against popular 
clamour, Lincoln thus avoided a possible 
clash threatened by Britain on a mat- 
ter which many Americans have long 



50 Britain and America 

held against her as an index of her partial- 
ity to the Confederacy. 

The Confederate Raiders. 

The Government of the United States, 
as a sovereign power engaged in quelling a 
rebellion, sought to have warships built 
in Great Britain ; and there is little doubt 
but that it was within the law in so doing. 

The Confederacy or Confederate agents 
had a number of ocean-going blockade 
runners and raiders built in England. 
But as the Confederacy was never recog- 
nized as a sovereign power, the agents 
of the Federal Government made such 
representations to the British Government 
that the latter attempted to prevent the 
sailing of these vessels; be it said, however, 
that for various reasons their attempts 
were often unsuccessful. 

On Lake Erie, the Confederates carried 
on such depredations from Canadian 



The Third Epoch 51 

bases that the Rush-Bagot agreement of 
18 17 to leave the Great Lakes free of 
warships was threatened with cancella- 
tion. In the Pacific, the Confederate 
ship Shenandoah was enabled to destroy 
the American whaling fleet because of 
illegitimate assistance given by Australia, 
while British-built Confederate raiders 
nearly drove Union merchantmen from 
the Atlantic. 

These depredations upon Union vessels 
were charged by the Union directly to 
the British Government. It was claimed 
not only that Britain was insincere in 
her perfunctory efforts to stop them, 
but that she actually rejoiced in them. 
Naturally, this resulted in intense feeling 
against the British Government. 

The case of the Alabama became especi- 
ally notorious. This vessel was built in 
Great Britain and set sail just before the 
arrival of an order from Earl Russell, the 



52 Britain and America 

British Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to 
have her held. She received her arma- 
ment in the Azores from British sources 
and set out on a remarkably successful 
career as a commerce destroyer. The 
Government of the United States pro- 
tested and charged Britain with re- 
sponsibility for the depredations of the 
Alabama. 

Situation at the End of the Civil War. 

While countenancing the Confederacy 
in what the latter esteemed as its strug- 
gle for self-government, Britain had not 
helped it in a large way. Consequently, 
at the close of the war many of the 
Confederate leaders condemned England 
for her partiality to the Union. 

The Union States also were intensely 
bitter against England, holding that she 
had been most reprehensible in promptly 
recognizing what they considered as only 



The Third Epoch 53 

the belligerency of disloyal rebels. It 
was alleged furthermore that by subse- 
quent actions and inactions the British 
Government had injured the people and 
Government of the United States in- 
dividually and nationally to an extent 
which could not be met by hundreds 
of millions of dollars. 

But in spite of its bitter feeling and in 
spite of having at its command the 
greatest veteran and victorious army and 
navy in the world, the United States 
settled its differences with Britain by 
arbitration. The Treaty of Washing- 
ton was drawn up in 1871, establishing 
new rules of neutrality. Britain agreed 
to be judged by these new rules for 
acts incident to the Alabama commit- 
ted years before the establishment of 
the rules. The United States received 
$15,500,000 and paid British claims 
amounting to nearly $2,000,000. 



54 Britain and America 

To adjudicate an offence under laws 
made after the commission of the offence 
is contrary to one of the fundamentals 
of our law. That Britain agreed to this 
is the strongest evidence of her desire to 
bury the differences which had arisen out 
of the Civil War. 

It should be noted, moreover, that 
when the democracy of the United States 
came triumphantly through the fiery 
ordeal of the Civil War, British liberals 
were quick to point the example, and the 
victory of the American Union helped 
still further to democratize Britain. 

This victory was of further importance 
to Britain because it proved that a large 
federal union of states or provinces could 
be made durable. It set a practical ex- 
ample for the organization of Canada, 
Australia, and South Africa as federated 
nations. 

One may, therefore, say advisedly that 



The Third Epoch 55 

not only was George Washington ''the 
founder of the British Empire," but 
that the United States has since been 
to a greater extent the exemplar and 
pathfinder of the British Dominions than 
has been Great Britain herself — a point 
of view often novel to that old type of 
insular Englishman who so distressingly 
misunderstands and misrepresents his 
own country. 

Fenian Difficulties and Citizenship. 1868 
While the difficult negotiations which 
led up to the Treaty of Washington in 
1 87 1 were being conducted, the situation 
became more complicated by the up- 
risings of Fenians in Ireland. These Fe- 
nians had many kinsfolk who had left 
Ireland because of the potato famines of 
1848-50 and had since become American 
citizens. In America they attained so 
much poHtical influence that politicians 



56 Britain and America 

seeking election found it profitable to 
"twist the British lion's tail," and they 
persistently did this to the great anxiety 
of American statesmen. 

Certain Irish-Americans with Fenian 
affiliations aided and abetted their breth- 
ren in many ways against Britain 
in Ireland and carried their scheming 
into Canada. Some of the more ven- 
turesome of them even returned to Ire- 
land bent on aiding the uprising from 
behind the shield of their American 
citizenship. Those who ran foul of the 
British law were taken in charge as 
British subjects, for Britain had not 
yet conceded to her subjects the right 
to cast off their individual allegiance to 
her even if they went through the form 
of becoming citizens of another country. 
The principles involved were similar 
to those incident to the impressments 
preceding the War of 1812. 



The Third Epoch 57 

The United States protested on behalf 
of her Irish- American citizens, and not 
only secured their recognition as Ameri- 
cans but thereby induced Britain to ex- 
tend to her subjects the right to throw off 
their allegiance to her when they became 
citizens of any other country. 

This act was a remarkable British con- 
cession to the American idea of democratic 
citizenship; and it is characteristic of the 
conditions which justify the claim that 
Britain long ago abandoned the ways of 
autocracy and has in reality a thoroughly 
democratic government. 

The Venezuelan Boundary. i8p^-i8g6 

The dispute over the Venezuelan bound- 
ary shows most clearly that democracies 
as well as autocracies can be rushed into 
war against each other merely by the 
ill-advised sayings of their chosen leaders 
and against the intentions of the peoples, 



58 Britain and America 

unless they have an informed and in- 
telHgent public opinion on international 
politics. 

For many decades, the boundary be- 
tween British Guiana and Venezuela 
had been in dispute. Venezuela had 
persistently urged that it be fixed by 
arbitration, but Britain had not acqui- 
esced; and Venezuela alleged that Brit- 
ish settlement was meanwhile pushing 
into territory claimed by Venezuela. 

The United States had repeatedly 
urged Britain to act on this matter, 
but it seemed destined to perennial 
postponement. 

Suddenly, the British Premier, Lord 
Salisbury, received a peremptory note 
from President Cleveland, reviewing the 
dispute, pointing out the interest of the 
United States in its settlement because 
of the Monroe Doctrine, and demanding 
in threatening terms the immediate sub- 



The Third Epoch 59 

mission of the whole matter to arbitration. 
The very able but irascible old Tory 
bristled at Cleveland's terms and especi- 
ally at the sweeping claims advanced 
for the Monroe Doctrine. Lord Salis- 
bury replied by two simultaneous notes. 
The first categorically denied the Ameri- 
can claims for the Monroe Doctrine, 
while the second, for the first time, pre- 
sented certain British views on the 
Venezuelan dispute and closed by refus- 
ing to submit the matter to arbitration. 

President Cleveland laid the situation 
before Congress which promptly granted 
his request that it provide for an American 
Commission to investigate and report on 
the boundary. 

His message to Congress was couched 
in such language that the two branches 
of the Anglo-Celtic civilization suddenly 
found themselves, to their unutterable 
amazement, apparently on the point of 



6o Britain and America 

war; and all, forsooth, over a few miles 
of South American boundary of remote 
interest to either. Yet, on consideration 
by the peoples, it all simmered down to 
an arrogant and aggressive statement 
haughtily repelled. While jingoes and 
Tories vituperated, most people seemed 
amazed that the controversy had arisen 
and were chiefly concerned that it be 
peacefully settled. 

So close had the myriad personal ties 
become between Americans and Britishers 
that the exchange of their views quickly 
resulted in mutual understanding. The 
Venezuelan boundary was soon settled by 
arbitration, and another British-Ameri- 
can discord passed harmlessly into history. 

Before its final settlement, however, 
the incident produced a noteworthy result. 
A wholesome lesson in public policy had 
been taught by the fact that the explosive 
utterances of their chosen Executives 



The Third Epoch 6i 

had nearly thrown the two halves of the 
English-speaking peoples into a destruc- 
tive war. 

To guard against sudden ruptures in 
the future, a general arbitration treaty 
was drafted by the representatives of 
both nations and was submitted to the 
American Senate. The Senate, however, 
as it still reflected the anti-British feel- 
ings which the Venezuelan episode had 
re-awakened in many people, withheld 
its ratification of this treaty. But after 
eighteen more years had passed a com- 
prehensive Peace Treaty was finally 
ratified by both nations. 

Britain afid the Spanish War. i8g8 

Within two years of the close of the 
Venezuelan controversy the real similarity 
of standards existing between America 
and Britain was shown during the Span- 
ish War. 



62 Britain and America 

Continental Europe, under the leader- 
ship of Germany, was antagonistic to the 
United States; but Britain faced Europe 
as the champion of America. Nor did 
she confine herself to giving merely moral 
support. 

When Admiral Dewey's fleet had cap- 
tured Manila, it was suddenly threatened 
by a more powerful German fleet sent 
there in the hope that a favourable 
opportunity might arise to seize the 
Philippines for Germany. But the Eng- 
lish Admiral interposed his fleet between 
those of Germany and America and told 
the German in effect that his first shot at 
an American warship would be answered 
by the British fleet. 

Since then all differences between Brit- 
ain and the United States have been 
settled by most amicable discussion and 
in a full realization of their common 
tenets. 



Conclusions 63 

CONCLUSIONS 



We have passed in brief review the 
most salient common actions and re- 
actions of the two great branches of the 
English-speaking people. We have seen 
Britishers transplant to America's soil 
the seedlings of English democracy and 
we have seen how, in the freer air of the 
New World, these outgrew their parent 
counterparts left in England. 

Whether in England or in America, 
the struggle of the people and of their 
representative leaders, who frequently 
were liberal aristocrats, has always been 
toward the same goal — personal liberty 
for all from autocratic rule. 

When the Hanoverian George III 
attempted to make himself a British 
autocrat, the American Britishers he op- 
pressed revolted and their struggle event- 
ually enlisted the support of British 
liberals in Parliament who helped them 
win their independence from the govern- 



64 Britain and America 

ment of the would-be autocrat. But note 
the sequel. 

Because he had the ignorant temerity 
to try to turn back the tide of English- 
speaking self-government in America, 
the British Parliament took from him and 
unto itself the supreme power to conduct 
the British Government by controlling 
the Ministry; and thus Britain, though 
still retaining the outward forms of a 
monarchy, grew in time into as true 
a democracy as is the United States. 

The story of the American Revolution 
would indeed have been a noble epic if 
that war had really been as it is taught 
in many American school histories — if 
George Washington, the faultless hero, 
had been surrounded only by noble and 
harmonious patriots; if he had lead a 
united people against a nation of tyrants ; 
if this devoted band had had to fight 
against the concentrated wrath of the 
mightiest mihtary power of the world; 
if they had repeatedly triumphed over 
all the armies sent to overwhelm them; 



Conclusions 65 

and finally if they had achieved a splendid 
victory and with it liberty from the 
tyrant England. Such is the fanciful 
tale which has thrilled American children 
and has coloured in later life all of their 
thought of England. 

But how contrary is all of this to the 
facts, and how unjust is it to the great 
leader who is recognized throughout the 
English-speaking world as one of the 
greatest men yet born of the Anglo- 
Celtic race. The true tale is nobler 
still. 

George Washington had the support 
not only of Americans but of the best 
minds in England; he was opposed not 
only by British autocracy but by the 
reactionaries in America; he not only 
achieved America's independence from 
England, but he liberated both America 
and England from the rule of an auto- 
cratic King; he not only founded the 
American Commonwealth of States, but 
the example he thus set showed Britain 
how to evolve the Britannic Common- 



66 Britain and America 

wealth of Nations. He was not only 
"the Father of his Country, " he was also 
"the Founder of the British Empire." 
Yet even this dual role gives him and 
his fellow patriots but half their due, 
for they, more than any other group of 
men, accelerated the growth of modem 
democracy, English-speaking democracy, 
the democracy after which are fashioned 
all great modern democracies. 

Justice, therefore, requires that in 
America we give to Washington and his 
associates not merely the credit due them 
for their accomplishments for America, 
but that broader measure of credit ac- 
corded them by Britain for what they 
have done for all English-speaking peo- 
ples. And, simultaneously, we should 
give proper credit to the British origins 
of American democracy: to the "Great 
Commoner," William Pitt, and to his 
followers, who supported the cause of the 
Colonies under very trying circumstances; 
to the liberal Englishmen who aided 
America to her independence; and to the 



Conclusions 67 

whole race which as a result has evolved 

English-speaking democracy. 

The joint heritage and common duty 
such antecedents have transmitted to all 
the English-speaking peoples are clearer 
today than ever before. 

We have seen how America fought 
England again in 1 8 1 2 because she thought 
England was again oppressing her in 
trade and in the persons of her naturalized 
citizens; and how, while at w^ar, the two 
nations made peace w^ithout concessions 
and gradually in after years peacefully 
composed the differences over which 
they had fought. 

Since then, the centur}^ of British- 
American peace with its discords and 
concords has gone into history. Its 
obvious lesson is that two great powers, 
haviQg similar tenets, can learn to 
make their adjustments with each other 
peacefully; always provided, that they 
desire to understand each other, that 
they desire peace more than war and 
that they desire above all that justice 



68 Britain and America 

be done. Such is the lesson of the 
concords. 

But the discords of the century of 
peace carry a deeper lesson. From them 
we learn that two nations, of common 
origin, of common language and culture, 
both democracies and both justice loving, 
can come most perilously near to war with 
each other over small as well as over large 
affairs of unexpected origin. Only by ex- 
ercising patience, intelligence, tolerance, 
and goodwill have they avoided repeated 
wars during the century of peace. Had 
but one of such necessary attributes 
been wanting, war in many instances 
would have resulted. May we not ration- 
ally deduce from this record that where 
such attributes are in part or in whole 
lacking between two or more nations, 
peace will not endure if the self-interest 
of but one calls for war? 

There is yet a deeper lesson. We have 
seen that the Monroe Doctrine, in essence 
emanating from England, caused a lim- 
ited co-operation between America and 



Conclusions 69 

Britain. The mere statement of their 
common purpose stopped the proposed 
aggression of the "Holy Alliance"; and 
ever since, by the dictum of the English- 
speaking peoples, the Western Hemisphere 
has been kept safe as the nursery for 
democracies. 

Again the autocracies of Prussian Ger- 
many and Austria, they of the "Holy 
Alliance, " have assaulted democracy. 
They thought Britain and America di- 
vided today just as the "Holy Al- 
liance" thought they were in 1823. But 
America has joined those whose valiant 
efforts have kept the fight for the most 
part in Europe. She has realized that it 
is not a "European War" but entirely 
a war of the aggression of the greatest 
medieval autocracy of Europe against 
modern democracy. After nearly a cen- 
tury, the prophetic words of our great 
democrat, Thomas Jefferson, have come 
true. With Britain, we are "fighting 
once more side by side in the same 
cause . . . not her war, but ours." 



70 Britain and America 

Through the red fog of this war the 
future is clouded; we cannot define the 
details ; only the great racial and poUtical 
masses of the world beyond the war are 
discernible. 

But looming through the fog we see 
our need of the unity of the English- 
speaking peoples. 



PARTIAL LIST OF CITATIONS FROM 
AUTHORITIES ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY 
AMERICAN BEARING UPON THE PRE- 
CEDING TEXT 



Page 5. ENGLAND'S PART IN THE DISCOVERY 
OF AMERICA 

Edward Channing, A Students' History of 

the United States, pp. 27-28. 

Matthew Page Andrews, History of the 

United Stales, pp. 1-4. 

Sinclair Kennedy, The Pan-Angles, A 

Consideration of the Federation cf the Seven 

English-Speaking Nations, pp. 6-7. 

Page 5. DATES OF THE FOUNDING OF THE 
COLONIEvS. 

Virginia, 1607; Plymouth, 1620; Massachu- 
setts, 1630; Maryland, 1634; Connecticut 
and New Haven, 1635-38; Providence and 
Rhode Island, 1636; The Carolinas, :663; 
New York, 1664; New Jersey, 1664; Pennsyl- 
vania, 1 68 1; Georgia, 1732. 
Edward Channing, A Sttidents' History of 
the United States, p. xxvii. 

Page 6. ANGLO-CELTIC MORE ACCURATELY 
DESCRIPTIVE OF THE RACE THAN 
ANGLO-SAXON. 

A. F. Pollard, The History of England, pp. 

14-15- 

W. H. Babcock, "The Races of Britain, ' in 
Scientific Monthly, February, 1916, p. 165. 
W. H. Babcock, lac. cit., pp. 168-169. 

71 



']2 A Partial List of Citations 

Page 6. TYPES OF GOVERNMENT IN THE 
COLONIES. 
Albert Bushnell Hart, Actual Govern- 
ment, p. 43. 

Page 7. RELATIONS BETWEEN COLONIAL GOV- 
ERNORS AND ASSEMBLIES. 
Sydney George Fisher, The Struggle for 
American Independence, vol. i., pp. 6-7. 
Henry Jones Ford, The Rise and Growth of 
American Politics, p. v. 
Albert Bushnell Hart, Actual Government, 
P- 41- 
Page 7- ORIGINS OF REPRESENTATIVE GOV- 
ERNMENT. 
Albert Bushnell Hart, Actual Govern- 
ment, pp. 39-41. 

A. F. Pollard, The History of England, pp. 
138-139- 
Page 7- GROWTH OF REPRESENTATIVE GOV- 
ERNMENT IN AMERICA. 
Edward Channing, A Students' History of 
the United States, pp. 141-142. 
Albert Bushnell Hart, Actual Govern- 
ment, p. 41. 

Arthur Lyon Cross, A History of England 
and Greater Britain, pp. 746-747. 

Page 8. EXTENT OF THE FRANCHISE IN ENG- 
LAND AND IN THE AMERICAN 
COLONIES. 

Prof. C. A. Beard, American Government 

and Politics, pp. 8-10, Macmillan. 

A. E. McKiNLEY, The Suffrage Franchise in 

the Thirteen English Colonies, University of 

Pennsylvania Publications, pp. 208 flf. 

Op. cit., p. 487. 

Arthur Lyon Cross, A History of England 

and Greater Britain, p. 747. 

J. P. Gordy, a History of the United States, 

P- 134- 



A Partial List of Citations 73 



Page 8. GEORGE HI'S IDEA OF KINGSHIP. 

Arthur Lyon Cross, A History of England 

and Greater Britain, pp. 739-740. 

Adams and Trent, History of the United 

States, p. 89. 

John Richard Green, A Short History of 

the English People, p. 761. 

Page 9. EARLY IDEAS OF COLONIZATION. 

Frederic Austin Ogg, Economic Develop- 
ment of Modern Europe, pp. 75-79. 
Arthur Lyon Cross, A History of England 
and Greater Britain, pp. 747-748. 
Sinclair Kennedy, The Pan- Angles, A 
Consideration of the Federation of the Seven 
English-Speaking Nations, pp. 184-186. 

Page 10. LACKOFUNITYAMONG THE COLONIES. 
Henry Jones Ford, The Rise and Growth of 
American Politics, pp. 2-3. 
Albert Bushnell Hart, The American 
Nation: a History, vol. ix., pp. 4-5. The 
American Revolution, ly 76-1783, by Claude 
Halstead Van Tyne. 
Carl Lotus Becker, Beginnings of the 
American People, pp. 163, 202-204, 212. 
Matthew Page Andrews, History of the 
United States, pp. 73-74. 
Sinclair Kennedy, The Pan- Angles, p. 186. 

Page II. BEGINNINGS OF DISCONTENT IN THE 
COLONIES. 
Henry Jones Ford, The Rise and Growth of 
American Politics, pp. 12-13. 
A. F. Pollard, The History of England, pp. 
160-161. 

Page 12. DEVELOPMENT OF DISCONTENT IN 
THE COLONIES. 
Albert Bushnell Hart, The American 
Nation: A History, vol. ix., pp. 6-7. The 
American Revolution, 1776-1783, by Claude 
Halstead Van Tyne. Also vol. ix., pp. 
14-15- 



74 A Partial List of Citations 



H. L. Osgood, England and the Colonies, in 
Pol. Sc. Quar., vol. ii., 1887, p. 467. 
SiMONE, Social Forces in American History, 
pp. 63-64. 

Sydney George Fisher, The Struggle for 
American Independence, vol. i., p. 84. 
Carl Lotus Becker, Beginnings of the 
American People, pp. 212,-21 i^. 

Page 13. TREND TOWARD SEPARATION FROM 
ENGLAND. 

Arthur Lyon Cross, A History of England 

and Greater Britain, p. 750. 

A. F. Pollard, The History of England, p. 

161. 

Carl Lotus Becker. Beginnings of the 

American People, pp. 239-240. 

Page 13. A THIRD OF THE COLONISTS FAVOR 
SEPARATION. 
Sydney George Fisher, The Struggle for 
American Independence, vol. 3., pp. 245-247. 
C. A. Beard's Review of The Colonial Mer- 
chants and the American Revolution, by 
Arthur M. Schlesinger, New York: 
Columbia University Press. New Republic, 
April 6, 1918. 

John Spencer Bassett, A Short History of 
the United States, p. 174. 
Carl Lotus Becker, Beginnings of the 
American People, pp. 248-249. 

Page 14. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPEND- 
ENCE. 
Sydney George Fisher, The Struggle for 
American Independence, vol. i., pp. 206, 208. 
Albert Bushnell Hart, The American 
Nation: A History, vol. ix. : The American 
Revolution, 1776- 1783, by Claude Hal- 
stead Van Tyne, pp. 83-85. 
Fisher, The True History of the American 
Revolution, p. 171. 

Carl Lotus Becker, Beginnings of the 
American People, pp. 251-252. 



A Partial List of Citations 75 



Page 15. THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 

Sydney George Fisher, The Struggle for 
American Independence, vol. i., pp. 537-538- 
Albert Bushnell Hart, The American 
Nation: A History, vol. ix. : The American 
Revolution, 1776-1783, Claude Halstead 
Van Tyne, pp. 227-229. 
Albert Bushnell Hart, The American 
Nation: A History, vol. x.: The Con- 
federation and the Constitution, ^Sj-iySg, 
by Andrew Cunningham McLaughlin, 
PP- 4-5- 

Page 16 REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT IN 
ENGLAND AFTER THE AMERICAN 
REVOLUTION. 

Albert Bushnell Hart, The American 
Nation: A History, vol. ix.: The American 
Revolution, 1776-1783, by Claude Hal- 
stead Van Tyne, pp. 12-13. 
Carlton J. H. Hayes, A Political and Social 
History of Modern Europe, vol. i., pp. 433- 
435. 

Charles Seignobos, A Political History of 
Europe since 1814, pp. 15-18. 

Page 17. RESULTS IN ENGLAND OF THE AMERI- 
CAN REVOLUTION. 

Arthur Lyon Cross, A History of England 

and Greater Britain, p. 781. 

John Richard Green, A Short History of 

the English People, pp. 789-790. 

Charles Seignobos, A Political History of 

Europe since 18 14, pp. I3~i4- 

Robinson and Beard, The Development of 

Modern Europe, vol. i., p. 195; vol. ii., pp. 

186-187. 

Carlton J. H. Hayes, A Political and Social 

History of Modern Europe, vol. i., p. 433. 

SiNCL.iiR Kennedy, The Pan- Angles, pp. 

76-80. 



76 A Partial List of Citations 



A. F. Pollard, The History of England, pp. 

168-169. 

George Louis Beer, The English-Speaking 

Peoples, pp. 41, 54. 

Page 19. RESULTS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLU- 
TION ON THE OTHER ENGLISH 
SPEAKING NATIONS. 

John Richard Green, A Short History of 
the English People, pp. 786-787. 
Carlton J. H. Hayes, A Political and Social 
History of Modern Europe, vol. i., p. 337. 

Page 20. EARLY LACK OF UNITY AMONG THE 
STATES. 

Edward Channing, A Students' History of 
the United States, pp. 216, 231-232. 
John Spencer Bassett, A Short History of 
the United States, p. 218. 

Page 20. INTERSTATE TARIFFS. 

Matthew Page Andrews, History of the 

United States, p. 150. 

John Spencer Bassett, A Short History of 

the United States, pp. 238-239. 

Edward Channing, A Students' History of 

the United States, pp. 231-232. 

Page 20 VIOLATIONS OF ANGLO-AMERICAN 
TREATY BY THE INDIVIDUAL 
STATES. 

Albert Bushnell Hart, The American 
Nation: A History, vol. x. : The Confedera- 
tion and the Constitution, 1 783-1 789, by 
Andrew Cunningham McLaughlin, pp. 
105-106. 

Arthur Lyon Cross, A History of England 
and Greater Britain, p. 781. 
Edward Channing, A Students' History of 
the United States, pp. 228-229. 



A Partial List of Citations ^^ 

Page 22. THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION A 
PRACTICAL COMPROMISE. 

Matthew Page Andrews. History of the 
United States, pp. 154-155. 
Max Farrand, The Framing of the Constitu- 
tion of ike United States, p. 206. 

Page 23. AMERICA'S HASTY ADOPTION OP BRIT- 
ISH SEAMEN. 

Henry Adams, A History of the United 
States, 1801-17, vol. ii., pp. 334-335. 
McM ASTER, A History of the People of the 
United States, vol. iii., p. 243. 

Page 24. BRITISH IMPRESSMENT OF AMERICAN 

SEAMEN. 

John Spencer Bassett, A Short History 

of the United States, pp. 306-307. 

Edward Channing, A History of the United 

States, vol. iv., pp. 367-368. 

John Bassett Moore, The Principles of 

American Diplomacy, p. 113. 

Page 25. BRITISH AND FRENCH RESTRICTION 
ON AMERICAN COMMERCE. 
John Spencer Bassett, A Short History of 
the United States, p. 308. 
Edward Channing, A Students' History of 
the United States, p. 323. 
Edward Channing, A History of the United 
States, vol. iv., pp. 362-363. 

Page 26. BRITISH ATTEMPTS TO AVOID WAR 
WITH AMERICA. 

John Spencer Bassett, A Short History of 
the United States, pp. 319-320. 
Henry Adams, History of the United States of 
America during the Second Administration of 
Thomas Jefferson, vol. ii., pp. 317-318, 331- 
332, and 347. 



78 A Partial List of Citations 



Page 27. THE WAR OF 18 12. 

William Archibald Dunning, The British 
Empire and the United States, pp. 8-10. 
Matthew Page Andrews, History of the 
United Stater, pp. 189, 190-19 1, 197, 199. 
Edward Channing, A Students' History of 
the United States, p. 338. 
John Spencer Bassett, A Short History of 
the United States, pp. 336-337. 

Page 28. THE PEACE OF GHENT. 

William Archibald Dunning, The British 
Empire and the United States, pp. 7-8. 
John Spencer Bassett, A Short History of 
the United States, p. 334. 

Page 31. ARISTOCRATIC CONTROL OF PARLIA- 
MENT. 

Robinson and Beard, The Development of 

Modern Europe, vol. i., p. 201. 

C. D. Hazen, Europe Since 1815, pp. 409- 

410. 

Page 31. BRITISH OPINIONS OF AMERICANS 
IN 1815. 

William Archibald Dunning, The British 
Empire and the United States, pp. xxii.-xxiii., 
and pp. 6-7. 

Edward Channing, A Students' History of 
the United States, pp. 330-331. 

Page 32. DISPUTE AND AGREEMENT REGARD- 
ING THE GREAT LAKES. 

William Archibald Dunning, The British 
Empire and the United States, pp. 13-18. 

Page 33. SETTLEMENT OF THE FISHERIES 
CONTROVERSY. 

William Archibald Dunning, The British 
Empire and the United States, pp. 23-28. 
John Spencer Bassett, A Short History of 
the United States, pp. 347-348. 



A Partial List of Citations 79 



Page 33. SETTLEMENT OF THE CANADIAN 
BOUNDARY. 

William Archibald Dunning, The British 
Empire and the United States, pp. 131-133. 

Page 34. THE ARBUTHNOT-AMBRISTER CON- 
TROVERSY. 

William Archibald Dunning, The British 
Empire and the United States, pp. 35-39. 
John Spencer Bassett, A Short History of 
the United States, pp. 368-370. 

Page 35 to 39. BRITISH ORIGIN OF THE MONROE 
DOCTRINE. 

George Louis Beer, The English-Speaking 

Peoples, pp. 75-79- 

William Archibald Dunning, The British 

Empire and the United States, pp. 48-55. 

C. D. Hazen, Europe Since 1815, pp. 64-65. 

Page 40. INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION IN ENG- 
LAND. 

Robinson and Beard, The Development of 

Modern Europe, vol. ii., pp. 323-324. 

C. D. Hazen, Europe Since 18 15, pp. 406- 

407. 

Page 40. LIBERAL PARLIAMENTARY REFORMS. 
William Archibald Dunning, The British 
Empire and the United States, pp. 62-70. 
C. D. Hazen, Europe Since 1815, p. 438. 
Charles Seignobos, A Political History of 
Europe Since 1814, pp. 36, 37. 

Page 41. THE CAROLINE INCIDENT. 

William Archibald Dunning, The British 
Empire and the United States, pp. 93-96. 
Albert Bushnell Hart, The American 
Nation: A History, vol. xvii., Westward 
Extension, 1841-1850, by George Pierce 
Garrison, pp. 68-70. 



8o A Partial List of Citations 



Page 42. THE MAINE BOUNDARY DISPUTE. 

William Archibald Dunning, The British 

Empire and the United States, pp. 11-12, 

106-109. 

John Spencer Bassett, A Short History 

of the United States, pp. 437-438. 

Page 43. THE OREGON BOUNDARY. 

John Spencer Bassett, A Short History of 

the United States, pp. 445-446. 

Edward Channing, A Students' History of 

the United States, pp. 423-425. 

William Archibald Dunning, The British 

Empire and the United States, pp. 132-133. 

Page 45. THE MEXICAN WAR. 

John Spencer Bassett, A Short History of 
the United States, pp. 438-439. 
William Archibald Dunning, The British 
Empire and the United States, pp. 135-137. 

Page 47. GREAT BRITAIN AND THE OUTBREAK 
OF THE CIVIL WAR. 
John Spencer Bassett, A Short History of 
the United States, p. 522. 
William Archibald Dunning. The British 
Empire and the United States, pp. 203-208. 
Ephraim D. Adams, The American Civil 
War from the British View-Point, in the 
History Teacher's Magazine, May, 1918, 
pp. 257-258. 

Page 48. THE TRENT AFFAIR. 

John Spencer Bassett, A Short History of 
the United States, pp. 522-523. 
William Archibald Dunning, The British 
Empire and the United States, pp. 210-218. 

Page 50. THE CONFEDERATE BORDERS. 

John Spencer Bassett, A Short History of 
the United States, pp. 523-524. 
William Archibald Dunning, The British 
Empire and the United States, pp. 218-220. 



A Partial List of Citations 8i 



Page 52. BRITISH-AMERICAN READJUSTMENTS 
AFTER THE CIVIL WAR. 

William Archibald Dunning, The British 

Empire and the United States, pp. 220-221, 

249-259. 

John Spencer Bassett, A Short History oj 

the United States, pp. 670-674. 

Page 55. FENIAN DIFFICULTIES AND CITIZEN- 
SHIP. 

C. D. Hazen, Europe Since 1815, pp. 470- 

471. 

William Archibald Dunning, The British 

Empire and the United States, pp. 223-227. 

Pages 57 to 60. THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY 
DISPUTE. 

John Spencer Bassett, A Short History of 
the United States, pp. 777-780. 
William Archibald Dunning, The British 
Empire and the United States, pp. 300-317. 

Page 61. A BRITISH-AMERICAN ARBITRATION 
TREATY PROPOSED. 

William Archibald Dunning, The British 
Empire and the United States, pp. 318-320; 
335-336. 

Page 61. GREAT BRITAIN AND THE SPANISH 
WAR. 

John Spencer Bassett, A Short History 
of the United States, p. 792. 
George Louis Beer, The English- Speaking 
Peoples, Their Future Relatiofis and Joint 
International Obligations, pp. 102-103. 

Page 62. RECENT BRITISH-AMERICAN CON- 
CORD. 

William Archibald Dunning, The British 
Empire and the United States, pp. 332-333; 
369-370. 



A PARTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY INDICATING 
SOME OF THE MAIN SOURCES OF 
INFORMATION USED IN PREPARING 
THE TEXT 



Adams, Charles Francis. Massachusetts, Its Historians 
and Its History. 

Transatlantic Historical Solidarity. 

Adams, E. D. British Interests and Activities in Texas, 
1838-1846. 

The Power of Ideals in American History. 

Adams, Henry. A History of the United States. 

Altschul, Charles. The American Revolution in our 
School Textbooks. 

Alvord, C. W. The Mississippi Valley in British Politics. 

Andrews, Charles. Colonial Self-Government. 

Andrews, Matthew Page. A Brief History of the United 
States. 

Babcock, K. C. The Rise of American Nationality. 

Babcock, W. H. "The Races of Great Britain, " in Scien- 
tific Monthly, February, 19 16. 

Baldwin, S. M. "American Law," in nth Ed. Encyclo- 
pedia Britannica. 

Bassett, J. S. a Short History of the United States. 

The Federalist System. 

Th Middle Group of American Historians. 

Beard, C. A. An Economic Interpretation of the Con- 
stitution. 

A merican Government and Politics. 

The Economic Origins of Jejj'ersonian Democracy. 

Beacker, Carl. The Beginnings of the American People. 

Beer, George Louis. The Commercial Policy of England 
Toward the American Colonies. 

The English-Speaking Peoples. 

The Origins of the British Colonial System. 

82 



A Partial Bibliography 83 

BoGART, E. L. Economic History of the United States. 
Burgess, J. W. Political Science and Comparative Con- 
stitutional Law. 
Channing, Edward. History of the United States. 

The Jeffersonian System. 

Cheyney, E. p. The European Baclzground of American 

History. rr ■ j 

COMAN, Katherine. Industrial History of the United 

States. . . 

Cross, A. L. A History of England and Greater Britain. 
Curtis Lionel. The Problem of the Commonwealth 
Davis, A. M. "The Indians and the Border Warfare of 
the Revolution," in Winsor, A Narrative and Critical 
Hhtory of America, vol. vi., chap. viii. 
Dunning, W. A. A History of Political Theories from 
Luther to Montesquieu. 

The British Empire and the United States. 

Fisher, Sydney George. Tne Struggle for American 
Independence. 

The True History of the American Revolution. 

Flick, A. C. Loyalism in Neio York. 

Foster, J. W. A Century of American Diplomacy. 

Friedenvvald, Herbert. The Declaration of Independence. 

Garrison, G. P. Westjvard Extension. 

Giddings, F. H. The Western Hemisphere in the World of 

Tomorrow. 
Green, E. B. Provincial America. 

• The Provincial Governor. 

Haney, Lewis. The History cf Economic Thought. 
Hart, A. B. Actual Government. 

• The Monroe Doctrine. 

Hayes, C. J. A Political and Social History of Modern 
Europe. 

British Social Politics. 

Hazen, C. D. Europe Since 1S15. 
Hobhouse, L. T. Democracy and Reaction. 
Hobson, J. A. Imperialism. 

■ The Evolution of Modern Capitalism. 

Hosmer, J. K. The Appeal to Arms. _ 

Howard George E. The Preliminaries of the Revolution. 
Jameson, J. F. The History of Historical Writing tn 

America. 
Johnson, Allen. Union and Democracy. 
Kennedy, Sinclair. The Pan- Angles. 



84 A Partial Bibliography 



LATAN1&, J. H. America as a World Power. 

Lodge, Henry Cabot. Historical Studies. 

■ The English Colonies in America. 

Mahan, a. T. The Influence of Sea Power upon the French 
Revolution and Empire. 

McLaughlin, Andrew C. The Confederation and the 
Constitution. 

McMaster, J. B. History of the People of the United 
States. 

Merriam, C. E. a History of American Political Theories. 

MiLNER, Lord. The Nation and the Empire. 

Moore, John Bassett, The Principles of American 
Diplomacy. 

MuiR, Ramsey. The Expansion of Europe. 

Ogg, F. a. The Economic Development of Modern Europe. 

Oliver, F. S. Alexander Hamilton: An Essay on Ameri- 
can Union. 

Osgood, H. L. "England and the Colonies," in Pol. Set. 
Quar., vol. ii., 1887. 

• The A merican Colonies in the Seventeenth Century. 

Pollard, A. F. The History of England. 

PowNALL, Charles A. W. Thomas Pownall, M. P. 
F. R. S., Governor of Massachusettes Bay, Author of 
the Letters of Junius, with a Supplement Comparing 
the Colonies of Kings George III and Edward VIL 

Rhodes, J. F. History of the United States from the 
Compromise of iS^o. 

Robinson and Beard. The Development of Modern 
Europe. 

Scherger, G. L. The Evolution of Modern Liberty. 

ScHMOLLER, GusTAV. The Mercantile System. 

Schouler, James. A History of the United States. 

Schuyler, R. L. "British Imperial Policy, " in Columbia 
University Quarterly, June, 19 1 7. 

Seeley, Sir J. R. The Expansion of England. 

Simons. Social Forces in American History. 

Slater, Gilbert. The Making of Modern England. 

Smith, Munroe. Jurisprudence, a Lecture. 

Thurston, R. H. The Growth of the Steam Engine. 

Turner, F. J. The Rise of the New West. 

Veblen, Thornstein. Imperial Germany and the Indus- 
trial Revolution. 

Van Tyne, C. H. The American Revoluton. 

The Loyalists in the American Revolution. 



A Partial Bibliography 85 



Walker, Mrs. Mabel G. "Sir John Johnson, Loyalist, " 

in Mississippi Valley Historical Review for December. 
WiNSOR, Justin. Narrative and Critical History of America. 
WooDSUKil, J. A. The Causes of the American Revolution. 



The War and 

Humanity 

By 

James M. Beck 

A Notable Sequel to "The Evidence in the 
Case" 

" Mr. Beck's volume was a classic the moment it ap- 
peared. We know of no more logical and lucid discussion 
of the essential facts and problems of the great war, nor 
any more truly, consistently, and even vigorously Amer- 
ican in its spirit. We should be well content to let it 
stand, if there were no other, as the authentic expres- 
sion of the highest aspirations, the broadest and most 
penetrating vision, and the most profound convictions of 
the American nation on matters which have never been 
surpassed and have only twice been rivalled in vital in- 
terests in all our history." — New York Tribune, 

THEODORE ROOSEVELT'S OPINION 

"It is the kind of a book, which every self-respecting 
American, who loves his country, should read." 

Revised and Enlarged Edition 
Nearly 400 pages. $L50 net. By mail, $1.65 

At All Booksellers 

G. P, Putnam's Sons 

New York London 



The Evidence in 
the Case 

A Discussion of the Moral Responsibility for the War of 

1914, as Disclosed by the Diplomatic Records 

of England, Germany, Russizi, France 

Austria, and Belgium 

By 
JAMES M. BECK, LL.D. 

Late Assistant Attorney-General of the U. S. 
With an Introduction by 

The Hon. JOSEPH H. CHOATE 

Late U. S. Ambassador to Great Britain 

15th Priniing — Revised Edition with much Additional 

Material 
IT. Over 280 pages, $1.25 net. By mail, $135 

" Mr. Beck's book is so extremely interesting 
from beginning to end that it is difficult when 
once begun to lay it down and break off the 
reading, and we are not surprised to hear not 
only that it has had an immense sale in England 
and America, but that its translation into the 
languages of the other nations of Europe has 
been demanded." — Hon. Joseph H. Choate in 
The New York Times. 

New York G. P. Putnam's Sons London 



France, England, and 

European Democracy 
1215-1915 

An Historical Survey of the Principles 
Underlying the Entente Cordiale 

By 
Charles Cestre 

Professeur a la Faculte des Lettres de Bordeaux 

8°. $2.50 net. By mail, $2.70 

A clever historical survey covering the 
relations between the two countries con- 
sidered from the thirteenth to the twentieth 
centuries. It presents, furthermore, an able 
summary of the ideals of England and the 
work she has tried to accomplish. The 
French author is a graduate of Harvard as 
well as a Docteur des Lettres of Paris. 
Translated by Professor Leslie M. Turner of 
the University of California. 

G. P. Putnam's Sons 

New Y<M-k London 



Sea Power and 
Freedom 

A Historical Study 

(By Gerard Fiennes 

Introduction by Bradley Allen Fiske 
Rear Admiral, U. S. N. (Retired) 

8°. 32 Illustrations. Price, $3.50 

THE host of readers who have absorbed 
Admiral Mahan's famous works will wel- 
come this volume, for by a review of naval 
history prior to 1660 and subsequent to 
1783, the limiting dates of Admiral Mahan's 
investigation, it confirms the importance of 
the role played by sea power in the affairs of 
the world. 

The volume carries the reader from the 
earliest recorded maritime expedition — that 
of the last Pharaoh of the Eleventh Dynasty 
— to the great and minor naval actions of 
the present war. 

The author shows that the possession of 
sea power depends on a national character 
which is, in itself, antagonistic to despotic 
rule. 

G. P. Putnam's Sons 

New York London 



w 



rill 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 529 771 5 



